Talk:Disjunction property of Wallman

Untitled

porton (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure, maybe the entry is wrong. Maybe it should say any non null element instead of atom. What we will do? We need an expert who knows for sure.[reply]

If it were any non null element, it would be trivially true for any partial order, as b itself would satisfy the required conditions. Making x be an atom is necessary to make the definition nontrivial (and also to make it be a proper generalization of the original lattice definition). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

porton (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC) In article is said This combinatorics-related article is a stub. But I count that this is an order theory not combinatorics article. Please fix.[reply]

We don't have a stub category for order theory; combinatorics is as close as I could find, unless you think mathematical logic would fit better. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

porton (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC) No, math logic would not fit better.[reply]

Alternative characterizations

porton (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC) In this draft article I found three alternative characterizations of so called "separable lattices" which are equivalent to Wallman's disjunction property for the case of ∩-semilattices. This should be somehow addressed in the article. I deem that these results in the mentioned article are to trivial to be called research and can be added to Wikipedia. What is the opinion of the community?[reply]

It does seem like a worthwhile thing to add, but I don't think you should just copy it from that paper without citing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]